ArticlePublic health nutrition2020
Ready-to-eat cereal fortification: a modelling study on the impact of changing ready-to-eat cereal fortification levels on population intake of nutrients.
Article in Public health nutrition, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Systematic Review of Evidence on the Role of Ready-to-Eat Cereals in Diet and Non-Communicable Disease Prevention.Nutrients · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Contribution of Nova-classified ultraprocessed foods to energy and nutrient intakes in very old people: the Newcastle 85+ Study.BMJ open · 2026Observational
- The nutritional and health benefits of ready-to-eat-cereal consumption: an updated technical review of global evidence.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Review
- Article
- Advanced Dietary Analysis and Modeling: A Deep Dive into the National Cancer Institute Method.The Journal of nutrition · 2022Article
- Ultraprocessed Products as Food Fortification Alternatives: A Critical Appraisal from Latin America.Nutrients · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveReady-to-eat (RTE) cereal is an important source of nutrients in the American diet. Recent regulatory changes to labelling requirements may impact the fortification of RTE cereal. We used an evidence-based approach to optimize the fortification of RTE cereal considering current dietary patterns and nutrition policy.
designA US modelling study of cross-sectional data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2013-2014. The percentage of the population below the Estimated Average Requirement (EAR) and above the Upper Tolerable Intake Level (UL) was modelled under three scenarios: baseline, zero fortification and optimized fortification.
settingUSA.
participantsToddlers aged 1-3 years, n 559; children aged 4-12 years, n 1540; adolescents aged 13-18 years, n 992; and adults aged ≥19 years, n 576.
resultsComparing current with optimized fortification, nutrient/100 g RTE cereal decreased for vitamin A, thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, vitamin B6, folic acid, vitamin B12, Ca and Fe (by 2-82 %). The amount of vitamins C and D increased (by 13 and 50 %, respectively). Among RTE cereal eaters, these changes resulted in modest increases in the percentage of the population aged ≥1 year below the EAR (+0·5 to +11·5 percentage points). Decreases were observed in the percentage of the population above the UL.
conclusionsFortification of RTE cereal can be optimized to provide key nutrients and minimize the percentage of the population below the EAR and above the UL. Dietary intake modelling is useful to ensure that RTE cereal continues to help the population meet their nutrient needs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.